VulnerabilityPublished 20 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-54174: OpenSolution Quick.CMS · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects OpenSolution Quick.CMSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Active
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: Low
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Active: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a targeted user to perform specific, conscious interactions with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload, or the user’s interactions would actively subvert protection mechanisms which would lead to exploitation of the vulnerability.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Aug 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
OpenSolution Quick.CMS	Affected =6.8	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should implement several specific measures beyond generic advice: 1) Immediately restrict administrative access to Quick.CMS to trusted networks or VPNs to reduce exposure to malicious sites. 2) Educate administrators about the risks of visiting untrusted websites while logged into the CMS to prevent inadvertent CSRF attacks. 3) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious POST requests to the article creation endpoint. 4) If possible, implement manual CSRF protections by adding anti-CSRF tokens or validating the HTTP Referer header in the CMS codebase, even if vendor patches are unavailable. 5) Monitor CMS logs for unusual article creation activity or unexpected content changes. 6) Consider isolating the CMS admin interface on a separate subdomain with strict Content Security Policy (CSP) and SameSite cookie attributes to reduce CSRF risk. 7) Plan for an upgrade or migration to a CMS version or alternative product that addresses this vulnerability once vendor patches become available or consider applying community patches if trustworthy. 8) Regularly back up website content to enable quick restoration if malicious content is injected.

Description

QuickCMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in article creation functionality. Malicious attacker can craft special website, which when visited by the admin, will automatically send a POST request creating a malicious article with content defined by the attacker. The vendor was notified early about this vulnerability, but didn't respond with the details of vulnerability or vulnerable version range. Only version 6.8 was tested and confirmed as vulnerable, other versions were not tested and might also be vulnerable.

Impact

For European organizations using Quick.CMS version 6.8, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk. An attacker could manipulate website content by injecting malicious or misleading articles, potentially damaging the organization's reputation and trustworthiness. This is particularly critical for public-facing websites of government agencies, educational institutions, or businesses that rely on Quick.CMS for content management. The integrity compromise could also facilitate phishing or malware distribution if attackers embed harmful links or scripts within the injected articles. Since the attack requires an administrator to visit a malicious site, the risk is somewhat mitigated by user awareness but remains significant in environments with less stringent security training or where administrators frequently browse the internet. The lack of vendor response and patches increases the risk of exploitation over time. Additionally, the absence of known exploits in the wild suggests this vulnerability is not yet actively exploited, but it remains a potential target for attackers aiming to compromise CMS content integrity.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Aug 2025, 13:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats